Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 439–453 | Cite as

Investigating Investigators: Examining the Impact of Eyewitness Identification Evidence on Student-Investigators

  • Melissa A. Boyce
  • D. Stephen Lindsay
  • C. A. E. Brimacombe
Original Article

Abstract

This research examined the impact of eyewitness identification decisions on student-investigators. Undergraduates played the role of police investigators and interviewed student-witnesses who had been shown either a good or poor view of the perpetrator in a videotaped crime. Based on information obtained from the witness, student-investigators then chose a suspect from a database containing information about potential suspects and rated the probability that their suspect was the culprit. Investigators then administered a photo lineup to witnesses, and re-rated the probability that their suspect was guilty. Student-investigators were highly influenced by eyewitness identification decisions, typically overestimating the information gained from the identification decision (except under conditions that led witnesses to be very accurate), and were generally unable to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses.

Keywords

Crime investigation Eyewitness identification Investigator decision-making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Melissa A. Boyce, D. Stephen Lindsay and C. A. E. Brimacombe.

References

  1. Boccaccini, M. T., Gordon, T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2003). Effects of witness preparation on witness confidence and nervousness. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3(4), 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brigham J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law & Human Behavior, 7(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, S., Abbe A., & Larson, R. (2006). Collaboration in associative recognition memory: Using recalled information to defend ‘new’ judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(6), 1266–1273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahl, L. C., Lindsay, D. S., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2006). Investigating investigators: Examining witnesses’ influence on investigators. Law & Human Behavior, 30(6), 707–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law & Human Behavior, 21(5), 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lindsay, D. S., Nilsen, E., & Read, J. D. (2000). Witnessing-condition heterogeneity and witnesses ‘versus investigators’ confidence in the accuracy of witnesses’ identification decisions. Law and human behavior, 24(6), 685–697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors’ verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. In D. F. Ross & J. D. Read (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 362–384). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L., & O’Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law & Human Behavior, 13(3), 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(1), 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57(3), 203–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Wells, G. (2000). Eyewitness testimony. Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 308–310). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  13. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). ‘Good, you identified the suspect’: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wells, G., Ferguson, T., & Lindsay, R. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(6), 688–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law and human behavior, 4(4), 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yuille, J., & Cutshall, J. (1989). Analysis of the statements of victims, witnesses and suspects. Credibility assessment (pp. 175–191). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa A. Boyce
    • 1
  • D. Stephen Lindsay
    • 1
  • C. A. E. Brimacombe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations